3 ms·

Android's market share is irrelevant to Google because it's a loss leader. They pay for it by encouraging usage of their other services which they monetize with

Android's market share is irrelevant to Google because it's a loss leader. They pay for it by encouraging usage of their other services which they monetize with ads. An Android with 100% market share where every handset forced users to use Bing would be worthless to them. It's quite likely if these conditions were removed from the Android licenses that nothing would immediately change because there is no latent demand for Android devices with DuckDuckGo or Bing or OSM map apps. At least not in Europe. However, the principle remains that Google has no incentive to build Android if it gets used to funnel traffic to its own competitors, and especially it would be disastrous for developers if Android forked into many incompatible versions. Hence the most likely outcome is that Android simply becomes closed source, and to access it you either have to agree to today's terms and bundle their services, or pay to cover the revenue Google feels like they might not get if you don't.

HillaryBriss 8y ago
> Android's market share is irrelevant to Google because it's a loss leader I disagree. Android market share is highly relevant to Google. Android is the platform where Google exerts its strongest ability to nudge/influence/cajole/incentivize users to use its money making services (e.g. search). If Android loses market share, Google loses money. What's more, Android market share keeps Google in the game. Google pays Apple 3 billion each year to be included as the default search engine on iOS. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/14/google-paying-apple-3-billion-to-remain-default-search--bernstein.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/14/google-paying-apple-3-billio... What would happen if Google did not have Android at all? What alternative would it have to paying Apple (and any other company with a competitive mobile OS) an ever-growing share of its search revenue? How would Google compete against Bing and others if, instead, Windows Mobile had Android's market share? Google would be in a weaker, less profitable, position. The driving reason Google bothered to create Android in the first place was to stay relevant in an economy which was transitioning away from desktop and toward mobile.
- repolfx 8y ago
  Yes, exactly, Android's market share in and of itself is irrelevant to Google, it's only relevant when considering other products. If Google didn't have web search and ads, then Android's marketshare would be existential, but as it is, Android exists mostly to reduce TAC costs for other products. If they could eliminate TAC in some cheaper way than developing a whole OS they'd do it.

HillaryBriss 8y ago

> Android's market share is irrelevant to Google because it's a loss leader I disagree. Android market share is highly relevant to Google. Android is the platform where Google exerts its strongest ability to nudge/influence/cajole/incentivize users to use its money making services (e.g. search). If Android loses market share, Google loses money. What's more, Android market share keeps Google in the game. Google pays Apple 3 billion each year to be included as the default search engine on iOS. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/14/google-paying-apple-3-billion-to-remain-default-search--bernstein.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/14/google-paying-apple-3-billio... What would happen if Google did not have Android at all? What alternative would it have to paying Apple (and any other company with a competitive mobile OS) an ever-growing share of its search revenue? How would Google compete against Bing and others if, instead, Windows Mobile had Android's market share? Google would be in a weaker, less profitable, position. The driving reason Google bothered to create Android in the first place was to stay relevant in an economy which was transitioning away from desktop and toward mobile.

repolfx 8y ago
Yes, exactly, Android's market share in and of itself is irrelevant to Google, it's only relevant when considering other products. If Google didn't have web search and ads, then Android's marketshare would be existential, but as it is, Android exists mostly to reduce TAC costs for other products. If they could eliminate TAC in some cheaper way than developing a whole OS they'd do it.